Posted on 07/11/2007 7:32:55 AM PDT by kellynla
"What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"[7].
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].
"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20]."
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
ping
Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church
Guess the answer is yes.
Seems to me all they did was re-assert the doctrine of apostolic succession, which is not exactly a new concept.
Who knows what retreat from healthy relativism we will soon have. Perhaps Bush will call the USA a good country. Maybe the head of the Jewish group will say the Judism is the true faith. Perhaps, Dale Jr. will come out solidly for NASCAR as a true sport?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
This coming from the head of the Church that has had to pay millions in settlement for child abuse? What a hooey!
I’ll hold my breath waiting for him to call Islam “defective”.
‘AIR, AIR!
To put it delicately here, the pope and his entire church seem not to mind flaming the Christian world with flat statements such as this, and then take great umbrage when catholics are at times criticized as idolators and big-time legalists who sell themselves as having been present at creation. I certainly find statements of this sort from him offensive, but not disturbing because as a Protestant I do not recognize any authority coming from him.
The historic point I believe the Holy Father is making is that the Roman church is the mother church of all Christiandom; hence: No Roman Catholicism = no Christianity. But to claim “true” church is a stretch and something I previously thought only indicative of Mormons.
In this world there is always someone who will throw gasoline on the fire.
Seems to me that any religion can deem itself to be “the True Faith” — indeed if it didn’t do so it would not be worth adherence. If the Catholics (or anyone) think that I, as a Jew, am going to Hell, well that’s their opinion. I beg to differ, but I couldn’t care less about what THEY think. Just so long as they don’t try to hasten my departure. This whole mishegoss means nothing...SSZ
A leftwing group.
See also:
Protestants aren’t proper Christians, says Pope
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863942/posts
Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863775/posts
Pope: Other Christians not true churches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863645/posts
Vatican says other Christian churches “wounded” (Non-Catholics not fullly Christian)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863612/posts
Vatican reiterates hardline on primacy of Catholic Church
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863549/posts
and, related:
Protestants and the Pope
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1863618/posts
Well he did get into trouble by repeating a criticism of the Muslim religion a while back. Soemthing about Islam only bringing the sword.
I posted the Fox News take on this but it was pulled. I can see this pissing off non-Catholic Christians.
I once had a coleague at work who was a Southern Baptist (when I lived in Kentucky). She was very pleasant overall, but would have no problem telling me in no uncertain terms that I was going to hell (because I was a Catholic and drank beer on occasion). I wasn’t “saved”.
It these brook no debate statements that turn so many people off of so many religions...
What does he say about Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and orthodox catholics who each Sunday repeat the same Niacean Creed complete with the statement of believing in “one Holy catholic and apostolic church”?
“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh”
Robert Heinlein
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.